President Obama is in a major controversy this week over whether or not to prosecute military or CIA members who were engaged in allegations of torture in the post 9/11 environment.

This is a complex issue. Those of us who remember the Cold War era also recall that one of the great black marks on the Soviet Union and its satellites was that the communists used torture while Americans didn’t stoop to that level. Our society was supposed to be morally superior to the communists. (Although the reality was probably different than what we were told at the time.)

Now, however, some U.S. leaders argue that torture is not so bad after all — when Americans choose to use it on their enemies.

This confusing moral quandary crosses many traditional political lines. For example, John McCain, a former POW and last year’s Republican presidential nominee, strongly opposed the use of waterboarding, a stand that was in opposition to many in his own party.

Still, for all our desire to walk on a moral high road in the torture debate, I suspect many people don’t have strong black-and-white views on the subject. We are, after all, a nation where one of the most popular television shows is “24,” a spy/terrorist thriller where the lead characters often uses force and torture to get information from the bad guys.

There are a couple of threads that run through this debate. First, people define “torture” in a variety of different ways. Some say that waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” — sleep deprivation, cold rooms and other physical and mental “discomforts” — aren’t really torture. And defenders of these practices say they are done under very controlled conditions.

But critics of those techniques argue that the level of discomfort is sufficient to label them as “torture” and furthermore, the information gotten from forced interrogations is often useless anyway.

The second idea in this debate is one of context. A captured enemy on the battlefield who is thought to have information about imminent attacks might be fair game for the use of physical or psychological force. But an enemy sitting in a cell away from battle who may not have immediate information changes the context and perhaps should not be subject to the same kind of physical or psychological abuses.

Perhaps the biggest issue in this debate is the moral and ethical standing of America. If the U.S. is to be a leader of freedom in the world, it cannot compromise that position with the unrestrained use of torture on its enemies. To do so undermines the very foundation on which our nation is built, eroding not just our diplomatic standing, but also our own political moral compass.

There are no easy answers to this issue, no matter what the chattering class may claim on television.

Is the use of forced interrogations always wrong? No.

Is the use of force sometimes wrong? Yes.

Sometimes necessary? Yes.

Confusing and morally gray? Definitely.

Mike Buffington is editor of The Jackson Herald. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.

the release of c.i.a. papers is one of the worst things that could be done as a matter of national security ! by letting the world know how far we will go to get information is just telling those who wish to do us harm what to expect ! in my opinion it is needed !! i read a story about people using a car battery and jumper cables on folks to get information well i see it like this if it saves 1 american life i only have two things to say red is positive and black is negitive ! ask yourself this.... if u.s.force is captured what will he/she go through as they try to get information ?? oops i forgot they don't waterboard or electrcute folks they just behead them on t.v. !

The U.S. is not morally superior to any other country. The sooner we get over that myth the better we will be. All you have to do is listen to the former Vice president of the United States Dick Cheney to prove this point.

If soldiers are captured on the field of battle, in uniform and fighting for a UN member state then I would be opposed to all torture on this person. If, however, the captured person was out of uniform or fighting an illegal war then all bets are off. I don't see why these people should be afforded American rights, or rights under the
Geneva Convention in any case. They are criminals or spies and should be tortured for information and subsequently executed after a military tribunal. That's how we did it in WWII. Why change now?

SO uniform on or uniform off makes the difference???? WELL who designed the uniforms...of course during the Iran -Contra era the UNITED STATES sold the guns,uniforms ,bullets etc, to Iran....in short your point is mute,,,all torture should be illegal.....kill'em yes torture no!!!

There is nothing 'grey' about this at all. After WWII, we executed Japanese for waterboarding our troops. It is a technique internationally regarded as torture (and by the US Government until our previous administration).
Two things that stand out to me is that for one, it destroys our moral credibility to the world. I don't CARE if they behead our people. WE ARE AMERICANS. WE DO NOT DO THAT. WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT!
Second. It does not work. Yes, people will confess to all kinds of things. Does it make it true? If it works, why isn't bin Laden or Mulla Omar in custody? How many stories are there of American servicemen tortured in Vietnam giving false information? John McCain's story of giving his interrogators the names of the Pittsburg Steelers offensive line in leu of the names of his squadron mates comes to mind.
Lets not through out our history, our integrity, and our knowledge to substitute the plotline for '24'. America is a better country than that. We are all better than that.

We as a Country are in "BIG TROUBLE"! Our President has rolled us over on our back and exposed our soft side. Although I didn't vote for him I have tried to support our new President, as I believe that is what your are supposed to do, but I cannot continue do do so. I believe we will suffer great tragedies as a result of his hap-hazard approach to doing business.

Jautry: You lasted about 3 months longer than I did. I tried to also support our well-meaning, inexperienced president but was unable to after about one week. I am anxiously awaiting the mid-term elections so we can remove the nuts from congress which will force our president to the right. We need to pull him out of left field.

I agree with you JAUTRY.I believe with this political stunt our President has put our Intelligent Agents in grave danger. While trying to gather information from Terroist who are trying to Kill All Americans the Agent might be tried by our own Government. I see a lot of stand down from these agents and maybe even mass exodus from the CIA. To just give up Methods of Operations for polical gain(2012)is just stupid.I would wish that the President of this Country would shut this down before we all pay the price with terriost attacks on the Citizens of this Great Nation.

you are exactly right. "Our President has rolled us over on our back and exposed our soft side." now instead of making excuses shouldn't we toughen up for once? is it not time to stop and remember the morals and values we are torturing others to protect -- what's wrong with that phrase people? as thomas paine wrote: an army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot.

I think we should do whatever is necessary to protect thisd country and our freedom. Torturing captured enemies has went on for years. President Obama is the closest thing socialist thinker as I can think of and is making a grave mistake in realsing CIA files. We lost thousands of innocent Americans to the 9/11 attacks and there is no telling how many we have saved since then by torturing suspected terrorists. I thank God everyday that the men and woman of the U.S. millitary are fighting for us. President Obama wouldn't have had the opportunity to even run for president if it wasn't for many Americans defending our freedoms. We should and I pray that we continue to do whatever it takes to defend that freedom.

Glad to see there are still some folks out there with some common sense. Moral high ground my ***!!! These people are the enemies of the Unites States and if given the chance will gladly kill as many Americans as possible again!! If left up to people like CrazyPete they'll get a regular American trial paid for by the taxpayers, be found innocent on some technicality, awarded millions for "pain and suffering", and within 6 months be on American Idol with their own recording contract & a rap song!!!! No wonder we're in the mess we're in! As the saying goes - Never underestimate the power of stupid people, in masses! God help this country till 2010, thanks to Odama and his "masses" we may not have a country to come back to.

another genius -- "Never underestimate the power of stupid people, in masses! God help this country…" so your proposal is to stand up for the Constitution and the Republic by throwing out the CONSTITUTIONal right-to-trial?

Yes - genius! Since when are prisoners of war protected under the constitution? If our American soldiers are captured on the battle field does the enemy we're fighting against stop the battle and fly in a judge from the U.S. to afford this American soldier his "contstitutional rights"....HELLO!!! No instead he gets BEHEADED ON TELEVISION or BURNED ALIVE .

Do you honestly think that if we give these prisoners of war a "Trial" that the terrorist organization they are fighting for will hail us as a "Great Nation" and will stop their war against us....HELLO again!!!

I suppose your answer instead is to give them a trial where they will most likely be found innocent (due to our current unfortunate political situation). They can then be given a ride back to their county of origin (paid for by the Americna tax payers)where they can then make their way back to one of the numerous battle fields so they can kill more American sons & daughters. I just can't fathom how people can be so ingorant??? Do you honestly think that any good will come from holding these trials??

I have another get idea that I know you can relate to - why don't we instead let all the convicted killers in prison loose. I'm sure they would be so thankful & gracious for being turned loose that they would never dream of killing or harming anyone again! Why haven't we taken this approach sooner - its all so clear to me know! YES - you are a genious, when can we hold elections to get you into office?

Yes I do but your gettin a little personal aren't you? If you don't talk about my mother then I won't talk about yours! If you want to start talking about kissing things I can suggest a lot of things for you to kiss?

And as for extreme mouths - someone has to be. Obviously the majority of Americans are perfectly content to keep theirs shut and allow this socialist government to walk all over them! This has been painfully obvious in the last 100 days!

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the United States ratified in 1994, prohibits the torture of any person for any reason by any government at any time. It states explicitly that torture is never justified -- "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification for torture." Unlike the Geneva Convention, which protects legitimate prisoners of war, the Convention Against Torture applies to everyone -- even terrorists and enemy combatants. And it cannot be evaded by "outsourcing" a prisoner to a country where he is apt to be tortured during interrogation.

In short, the international ban on torture -- a ban incorporated into US law -- is absolute.

I am quite surprised that folks who proclaim to be "law abiding citizens" seem to relish in their sadistic tendencies and reveal themselves to be no better than the terrorists they want to torture. Anyone who tortures is a criminal. Anyone who supports torture abets that crime.

okay i see your point but lets look at a hypothetical situation lets say someone you love is kidnapped and there were 2 men involved one is caught and the other is with your loved one and your loved one needs medicine or he/she will die in the next few hours what do you do ?? buy him a cup of coffee and hope he tells where your loved one is ?? some one wrote that most men are law abiding but all men are capible of murder it just depends on the circumstance!!

Torture is the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. The legal difference between torture and other forms of ill treatment lies in the level of severity of pain or suffering imposed. In addition, torture requires the existence of a specific purpose behind the act -- to obtain information, for example. Methods of torture may be both physical and/or psychological in nature and both methods may have physical and psychological effects.

For the purposes of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (which the United States is signatory to), the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

In short -- it is a crime to torture. There is no debate about that.

We train our military very well. We expose them to "harsh interrogation techniques" to prepare them in the event that if they are captured and tortured by enemy criminals that they might know what to expect. They are not being trained to torture others. That would be a war crime.

You say this, Mr. McCarthy: "Those who disagree with you are not complicit in some imagined crime. Be careful how you vilify the good folks writing here."

You can disagree with me all you like. That is not a crime. Torture is the crime. And what I said, if you actually read my words, is that anyone who tortures is a criminal (by legal definition). If you fit into that category, then you are indeed a villain. If you support torture, you abet a crime, in that you are encouraging criminal behavior. This of course depends on what level of support for torture you offer. If the only support you offer is to stick a magnetic decal on your car or blather some jingoistic phrase, or some similarly shallow act, that would not make you complicit in the crime of torture. But it speaks volumes about your character.

And, Mr. McCarthy, I am careful. I obey the law and expect others to do the same. I do not consider anyone who tortures another human being, or encourages the crime of torture, to be one of the "Good Folks." That's my prerogative.

You make a strong argument Mr. Pain. I just hope it isn't your wife, daughter or son or mother or father that is put into danger because one of these criminals do not help us in time to save them. Indeed, if that were to happen, your platitudes would seem empty, if not to the world, it would be in your own heart. If you can live with that possible reality G_d be with you.

I don't understand how anyone can condone torture. Torturing prisoners makes us the same as our enemies. We bash China on their human rights policy but then waterboard people? If our government is willing to do it to these prisoners of war because they might be a threat to the US, what is to stop them from doing it to an American citizen they think MIGHT be a threat to the US? None of these prisoners have been to trial, none have been able to counter the charges made against them. If they are willing to stoop so low as to deny basic human rights and torture then there is no telling how low they'll go. This is a slippery slope that should NOT be traveled down by Americans.

so being picked up in a known terrorist area and being on the c.i.a. intel reports as a terrorist is not enough for you ?? you want a trial for the terrorist too ?? change your name to jen the liberal !! i bet you felt sorry for the somali pirates too right ???

An interesting quote charged up, but not one I believe is correct. If a man has a conscience he will be for the most part law abiding and not be capable of murder except in the case of self defense. If a man has no conscience he will be law abiding only when it is convenient for him and murder will be no problem when he fells it is justified. As for "O" No it is a good thing he was born in the U.S. for if he was born in the middle east he would be a leader of some terroist group.

Yeah boy, in the last 100 days this country has gone to pot. Ah, for the "Days of Dubya" when everything was perfect and we were all happy! Incredible how one man can not only hypnotize and corrupt the majority of Americans in about a year's time, but single handedly bring down our economy and send hundreds of thousands of our sons & daughters straight into harm's way.....all just for the fun of it! Yep, I'm sure Obama is in the Lincoln bedroom right now just laughing his ass off at the one he pulled over on us!

See, you and Dubya? You're the ones who made the whole of America look like freakin' morons to the rest of the world. You've done your part, but I think it's time you stop "helping" America.

Some of you folks are just living under a rock. "O", Michael, Charged up and Common Sense, I'm happy to hear someone with a little backbone posting comments. As I stated before, We are in big trouble. Sounds like if it were up to Kathy, Jen and Mr Pain we might as well just hand Osama Bin Laden the keys to the country and let him drive it himself. I can only imagine how delighted he is with the show of total foolishness our new President is putting on. I just pray that we survive this mess until election time.

So JAUTRY, you leave me confused. America is great because it is a nation of laws, and that we respect and obey the laws we have passed and have sworn to uphold. I'm on that side of the argument. It sounds like you think that criminal behavior is OK with you and that breaking the law is no big deal. That's not the America I am fighting for!

Iraqvet: WWJD? That is the dumbest question I have ever seen asked in a blog. He would do what he did 2,000 years ago: Turn his cheek and let the Romans occupy his country with no resistance. Is that what you want?

These terrorists are not US citizens and fought illegally. They declared Jihad on America. WWJD my behind!

You appear to have selective hearing. My interest is in keeping the American People safe. We fell down on that job once because we are dealing with an enemy with no ethics when it comes to regard to human life. Regardless of what all the "Bleeding Hearts" may say and no matter how much they argue, there are guidelines and limits as to what can and cannot be done. There probably were some cases where the line was crossed, but that is a pitiful excuse for abandoning the entire program and exposing it to our enemies. We as a Country are many times over weaker now than we were a couple of weeks ago. We have been compromised in a pitiful and shameful manor!

jesus would have touched them and they would have been instantly converted we don't have that power god did not allow david to be beaten by any of his enemies i'll take water boarding over the jaw bone of a ass upside the head anyday !!!

I'm sorry to say that I believe Osama (Obama) already has the keys and is in fact already sitting in the drivers seat! I think the train has definately already gone off the Cliff!

It's ironic how a man that ran on the notion that he would "unit" and be "bipartision" has divided a county to such a degree! I wonder if this is the change he was referring to?

The thing that amazes me the most is the willingness of Americans to just sit back and watch it all go down the tubes. I feel sorry for Kathy, Jen, & Mr. Pain - what a fantasy land they must be living in - You have to wonder about their thought process. As you say, definately "living under a rock". Unfortunely the "Burden" is ours to educate these poor souls. Obviously they have spent to much time in an Univeristy of "Higher Learning" (i.e. "under a rock").

Don't you just love it when someone expresses a wish to educate poor souls in a message that includes misspelled words ("definately" twice, "unit" for unite, "bipartision"), poor grammar ("have spent to (sic) much"), bad syntax, and mixed metaphors.

You indeed have a "Burden" to educate, but if I were you I'd educate myself first. After achieving that goal, you can address your efforts those folks that spent time at "an University" and who quite likely received higher degrees than is reflected in your substandard writing skills.

Go back and take another look Joe. I was "not" the one that wanted to educate anyone. And thanks for catching the grammatical error. I left two in there because I knew some pompous ass would just have to call me out on it. So, you missed one.

Exactly who is losing on content? One group here seems to agree that the U.S. should obey the law and have high moral standards. The other group keeps saying that the U.S. should break the law and commit crimes against humanity. All "grammer" aside, I know which side is the ultimate loser in this argument.

Good catch Tom. Read my post to Joe. You got the other one!
This has been a good debate. We have a difference of opinion, that's why it is being debated. My point earlier was that when some people feel like the debate is not going their way they resort to shifting the attention to the grammar of folks that happen to have a different opinion than they do. Pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Your comment doesn't change the fact that a grown person who cannot communicate on a 10th grade level is only going to invite sniggers when he/she attempts to present themselves as someone who "knows" what's best for our country.

And "O" - most of the world knows that "W" was referred to as "Dubya". Talk about being "under a rock"!!!

It is custmary not to criticize spelling and grammar in blogs. We could all use a spell checker and grammar checker in our word processers but that would slow down the exchange of ideas which are more important.

I disagree. I think the "exchange of ideas" on blogs is of a very low quality, not tremendously important, and adds little in the way of mutual understanding to complicated issues. Secondly, as an educated person, I most certainly do judge the education level of others on how they present themselves in writing. If you were too lazy to learn to express yourself properly, why should I assume your ideas are the result of any intelligence? Instead, I'll assume that the only "research" you did was to watch "24". In fact, I think less of Mainstreet News for allowing these comments at all.

Really? Because here's a list of people who also prefer censorship: the Taliban, Nazis, Marxists, fundamentalist Christians, neo-conservatives, liberals, and Maoists. Are you telling me that ALL of these groups are Stalinists? Or did you just use a term without really knowing what it means? While you're looking up "Stalinism," you might also want to make sure you know what "censorship" means, because a privately-owned company turning off a privately-owned blog isn't it.

Of course Stalin was on the left and there are groups on the right, as you so sublety pointed out who would also advocate censorship. I stand corrected on this minor point.

Let me re-phrase this: The left who advocate censorship are Stalinists. This also may be a bit of hyperbole but I like the description.

To advocate censorship of the local, privately held newspaper would still be advocating the same. Why do you think the bill of rights guarantee the freedom of the press silly? The British would not allow it.

Did I ever say the government should shut down the blog? No. I said that I think less of Mainstreet News for sponsoring this forum. If I don't let people write their opinions on the side of my house, does that mean that I support censorship? If you think you have a constitutional right to spout off on a privately owned property, you're grievously mistaken.

If I were you, I would strongly consider not using my real name. Your writing is doing nothing for your reputation as a critical thinker. (E.g., your comments about Stalinism.)

The Mainstreet News is not the side of your house. I think thou protest too much. More anger than any sort of substance. I'm here to exchange ideas with my fellow citizens. Just because I don't like censorship and equate it to Stalinism shouldn't make you angry with me. Lighten up dude!

If you would use your real name you might choose your words more carefully. You probably also have a road rage problem as your are incognito there too.

well go get a more liberal newspaper and a glass of wine and do your thing and when the chit hits the fan don't ask to borrow my jumper cables ! i'll drink beer and know that me and mine are safe that is until you high educated liberals get captured and start telling all of the u.s. secrets that the enemy don't already know !!

Hey, I disagreed with you and used commas correctly. That must mean I'm liberal. Do you know what "liberal" even means? If you did, and managed to make it through an entire editorial, you'd know that this newspaper's editorial page leans left.

I'll take the 10th grade education as a complement - actually I only made it through the 8th before I had to drop out! So I guess typing away on these crazy blogs is teaching me some things - huh? I know I may not be quit to your level your highness (oops is that spelled right?)but I will keep on trying. And I think I have found the spell check on this blog site - it's called "Kathy" & "Charles". Great job guys obviously you two have found your calling in life. I suuure am looking forward to ya'lls reeply so yous too can teach me sum mor. Lets sea so far i hav leart how to spell "unite", "bipartison", and a hole bunch of other things. Could you please esplain more about this "syntax" and "metaphors" thing though?

Amazing how the topic of this blog has turned from torture to spelling errors isn't it? I believe JAUTRY was right - when all else fails - change the subject. And what better thing to change it to on a hometown blog than spelling. If that's not SHALLOW I don't know what is (oh - did I spell that right?).

And so goes the problem with America today. Over 60 years ago when America was attacked we took on the world and won! Not because we wanted to but because it was the right thing to do. Today America gets attacked and seven years later we act like a bunch of little school girls on recess - too worried about our spelling errors and what is "morally correct". 60 years ago do you pinheads think Americans were concerned about the "rights" of prisoners of war - I don't think so. Even though I realize some moron living in fantasy land is going to reply "Genevia Convention"! Americans had better wake up & pull their spelled correctly heads out of their spelled correctly proverbial you know whats before it's to late.

Gee Kathy, it's unfortunate that you have the insight to judge the intelligence of so many people by scrutinizing their spelling in a hometown newspaper. Some of these folks, despite an occasional mispelling seem to have brought up some pretty good points and continued a pretty good discussion. For the sake of your ego I hope you can find a few people that take you as seriously as you seem to take yourself.

Cool Kathy, that is the best comment you've made yet. You may not be completely out of touch after all!

Add Comment

Name

Email

Homepage

In reply to

Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:

Phone*

What is nine minus two?

Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.